Author Topic: Efficiency numbers  (Read 6953 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 55976
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #50 on: September 23, 2013, 03:26:43 PM »
now that we're through the tough stretch in the schedule I expect our numbers to improve. drastically.

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that FAN's numbers are meaningless crap (except turnovers, my god).

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38024
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #51 on: September 23, 2013, 03:37:05 PM »
now that we're through the tough stretch in the schedule I expect our numbers to improve. drastically.

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that FAN's numbers are meaningless crap (except turnovers, my god).

The numbers are very meaningful because they show us that if we could just get a QB into the game who could hold onto the football, our offense really isn't worse than it was last season.

Losing Malone was a big blow to the defense. He was a ball hawk. We absolutely have to find a corner who can at least cover a wide receiver for a few seconds, and I think we might start to get some more turnovers defensively. I just don't know if that player exists this year.

Offline kougar24

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5380
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #52 on: September 23, 2013, 03:38:44 PM »
bill must be best buds with that loser D2 coach who whipped his ass
:lol:

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 55976
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #53 on: September 23, 2013, 03:53:08 PM »
now that we're through the tough stretch in the schedule I expect our numbers to improve. drastically.

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that FAN's numbers are meaningless crap (except turnovers, my god).

The numbers are very meaningful because they show us that if we could just get a QB into the game who could hold onto the football, our offense really isn't worse than it was last season.

Losing Malone was a big blow to the defense. He was a ball hawk. We absolutely have to find a corner who can at least cover a wide receiver for a few seconds, and I think we might start to get some more turnovers defensively. I just don't know if that player exists this year.

No, it shows we've done shitty compared to last year. We've played two D2 teams (I guess Umass is D1 but whatevs), a Sun Belt team, and the worst UT team in history, while last year's numbers include the most difficult conference schedule in Snyder's tenure.

(Now if FAN did last year's first 4 games and compared them to this year's first 4, I may change my tune.)

Offline Rage Against the McKee

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 38024
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #54 on: September 23, 2013, 03:57:30 PM »
now that we're through the tough stretch in the schedule I expect our numbers to improve. drastically.

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that FAN's numbers are meaningless crap (except turnovers, my god).

The numbers are very meaningful because they show us that if we could just get a QB into the game who could hold onto the football, our offense really isn't worse than it was last season.

Losing Malone was a big blow to the defense. He was a ball hawk. We absolutely have to find a corner who can at least cover a wide receiver for a few seconds, and I think we might start to get some more turnovers defensively. I just don't know if that player exists this year.

No, it shows we've done shitty compared to last year. We've played two D2 teams (I guess Umass is D1 but whatevs), a Sun Belt team, and the worst UT team in history, while last year's numbers include the most difficult conference schedule in Snyder's tenure.

(Now if FAN did last year's first 4 games and compared them to this year's first 4, I may change my tune.)

Last year's Missouri State and North Texas games were pretty ugly offensively. We played well against Miami, though.

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #55 on: September 23, 2013, 04:15:12 PM »
My first point was that the schedule to this point in the season must be considered, so that critique is fair.

I'd say it's likely the offensive numbers will stay about the same because the league isn't great defensively and (hopefully) as this staff figures out how to use the pieces on offense we'll see decent efficiency with fewer turnovers. This is the worst 4 game stretch for turnovers in Snyder's second stint, and the last 8 games have featured 17 turnovers on offense, so it's a problem that goes back to last year as well.

Defensively, it's likely not going to get better, but hopefully we can figure out how to force some more turnovers.

catzacker

  • Guest
Re: Efficiency numbers
« Reply #56 on: September 25, 2013, 10:19:31 AM »
Some trends that probably aren’t too difficult to determine a cause:

                     ’12    ‘13
Run Att/game   43   36
Pass Att/game  20   26

The most we threw it last year through the first 4 games was 28 against MoSt, we’ve thrown greater than that in every game this year except UMass.